And, what that proves is that God does not necessarily force His will on those He "wills" not to perish.

No, it's talking about something else. When God appears to man, he never COMMANDS man to sin and then perish--that is not God's will that any would perish in that sense.

This story should illustrate the point:

1 Samuel 2:25--If one man sin against another, God shall judge him; but if a man sin against Yahweh, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding, they didn't listen to the voice of their father, because Yahweh was minded to kill them.

Eli conveyed the Lord's will for his sons to not sin, as is God's will . . . ON ONE LEVEL.

On the other hand, he hardens whom he wants to harden, and we can see that happening in this story--Yahweh was minded to kill them justly, and therefore hardened their sons to the warning from his father (from God, of course).

So God's will has two layers. On the one hand, he has never commanded someone to sin and bring death on himself, and that's why "it is God's will that none would perish." His command to the whole world is to repent and live, but on the other hand, some were essentially made by God not to listen to him, so that God would demonstrate his wrath on them such as the case with Eli's sons.

And, what that proves is that God does not necessarily force His will on those He "wills" not to perish.

Amen.

It is a simple, straightforward meaning to Peter's message (2 Pet 3:9). God has no intended purpose that any should perish. Because God did not send His son Jesus into the world to judge the world, but rather so that the world might be saved (John 3:17).

Logged

Christian Forums and Message Board

I would like to offer some input, if you would have it. I'm not that smart, and I definitely cannot take credit for the information I know. I learned it from men smarter than me, and am only presenting it, is all. That's my little disclaimer, LOL.

As for the Romans 10 verse "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"

Much emphasis is placed on the word "whoever" or other translations "whosoever". However, the problem here is that there is no equivalent of the English word "whosoever/whoever" in the Greek language. That means when John wrote John 3:16, or when Paul wrote Romans 10:13, they did not write "whosoever", because there is no such word in the Greek.

In the statement "Whosoever believes", in John 3:16 for example, those 2 words are not the translation of two Greek words, but instead, the translation of an entire Greek phrase (3 words, I believe). Using John 3:16 for example: pas ho pisteown. This literally reads "all the believing" or "all the believers" or "everyone who believes". In the Romans 10:13 case, it is "everyone who calls". (The ESV translates Rom 10:13 this way). The point is, the old English word "whosoever" has connotations that the authors John and Paul did not intend to be in their verse. "whosoever" does not suddenly "erase" the concept of unconditional election or disprove predestination. It simply means "everyone who.." does such-and-such. Are the statements "everyone who believes will be saved" and "everyone who calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved" compatible with unconditional election/predestination? Yes, they are. They do not serve to either prove or disprove anything.

That being said, when Paul writes "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved", he is not saying anything that disproves unconditional election. For both Calvinists and Arminians believe that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will find him to be a perfect Saviour. There is nothing in Paul's statement in Rom 10:13 that says anything to the effect of who will call upon the name of the Lord, who has the capability to call upon His name, or why they call upon his name. (Both John and Paul answer these questions in John 6, 8, 10, and Romans 1, 3, 8, for example - No one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father - Jesus speaking, John 6:44, 65.)

The only thing we can derive from Rom 10:13 and John 3:16, is that yes, every single caller and every single believer will in fact be saved. This does not disprove the Calvinist doctrine of election, nor does it prove conditional Election (non-Calvinism)

Also, someone mentioned 2 Peter 3:9, but I would like to respectfully urge you to check the context.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

What "promise" is the verse speaking of? The promise of salvation, or something else? If you would read the prior 8 verses, you'd find that the promise being spoken of is not salvation, but the Lord's 2nd coming. So the verse is not a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse!

Next, who is the "you" that God is "patient towards"? Every single human being head for head, or the people to whom Peter is writing? Again, if you read the first 8 verses of 2 Peter, and also find out who Peter addresses the letters of both 1st and 2nd Peter to, you would find that Peter is specifically writing to "Gods elect". (1 Pet 1:1-2). In writing his second letter to them (2 Peter), he starts the letter by saying "I'm writing to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours". So again, he is writing to believers. Not only are they believers, but they "obtained their faith" (suggesting that faith itself is a gift).

Then, when we get to chapter 3, Peter starts the chapter by saying: "2Pe 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.. The second letter? That means the same group that Peter wrote to in 1 Peter is also the people he is writing to in 2 Peter. And again, 1 Peter 1:1-2 says "To God's elect..". Therefore, 2nd Peter in total, including chapter 3, and including verse 9, are written to Gods' elect, just as 1 Peter was.

Further, if you look at the pronouns from 2 Peter 3:1-9, and follow the "you", you will notice something amazing. Peter is striving to distinguish and make the difference between two groups or "types" of people: "you" (ie, God's elect"), and "them" (ie, the ungodly men whom God is planning to destroy) (2 Pet 3:7)

For a visual aid, see the chapter below with all of the pronouns color coded:

Here are the opening statements of Peter’s two letters. Notice who he is specifically addressing his letters to:

1 Peter 1:1 Peter...to God's elect... 2 Peter 1:1 Peter...to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours (ie, God’s elect, since God’s elect (chosen people) are the ones who obtain/receive the gift of faith)

Christian Forums and Message Board

blituri

ROMANS 9 -- 11 is a "sermon" proving to the Jews that they were not PREDESTINATED when they were CHOSEN.

Chosen means to be TRIED as one picks people as STUDENTS.

The PURPOSE of Paul is to prove both in Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 10 that AFTER they were chosen they fell BACK to the musical idolatry at Mount Sinai.

That just proves that they were not PREDESTINATED to be saved because they FELL from Grace and became CASTAWAYS. Anathema means that God made a VOTIVE OFFERING of the tribe of Levi to serve in the curse of the sacrificial system. Once people have been DEVOTED for service they cannot be redeemed.

The only meaning of ELECTION has to do with protecting the BLOOD LINE of Jesus Christ.

Unconditional Election for Nations Genesis

Gen. 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.Gen. 25:23 And the LORD said unto her,TWO nations are in thy womb, and TWO MANNER of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one PEOPLE shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Paul identified the only spiritual covenant made by Christ to Abraham BECAUSE Abraham was a man of faith which meant that he obeyed God rather than to try to work himself up to a superior state by rituals or sacrifices.

Gal. 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?Gal. 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.Gal. 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.Gal. 4:24 Which things are an ALLEGORY for these are the two COVENANTS; the one from the mount SINAI which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.Gal. 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to JERUSALEM which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

The Jerusalem of the earth is also called SODOM and the Mother of harlots.

Gal. 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the MOTHER of us all.Gal. 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as ISAAC was, are the children of promise.Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.Gal. 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.Gal. 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.Heb. 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,Heb. 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in ISAAC shall thy seed be called:Heb. 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.Heb. 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

Heb. 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;Heb. 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.Heb. 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Anthony: "Romans 9 actually teaches the Gospel Truth of double predestination, some to eternal destruction, and some to eternal glory."What about you Anthony....eternal destruction, of eternal glory? How do you know? Since you do not believe in "free will" as in Calvin's Unconditional Election.

As you know, Calvin's Unconditional Election is God intervening into the totally depraved circumstance in which the sinner finds himself. You are aware that no amount of desire or searching of the soul can bring one closer to faith in Calvin's theory of Unconditional Election. As you are aware, the Calvinist believes God determines who will or will not have faith and assigns it to them accordingly. If by divine decree you are damned, you are most certainly and hopelessly damned. Conversely if by divine decree you are elected, and chosen to be a receipt of the gift of faith, you will have faith.

If Calvin's theory was true...why "go teach and make disciples of every nation"? The Calvinist will tell you that he has a "feeling in his heart that he is saved."Interesting, the Bible does not teach that man is "lost" in his heart, therefore, he cannot be "saved" in his heart.

Paul writes: "This is a good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:3,4).It is a logical impossibility for this verse to be true if God has predetermined every individuals eternal destiny in total disregard to free choice.What good is it to you Anthony to "come to the knowledge of the truth" if you have been assigned to either heaven or hell by a God "that loves you"?

Some read it as a part of a whole - that Paul has taken a single topic and, from the very outset laid out a single thought - that we are either predestined to salvation through election, or predestined to destruction. Is this the way Paul wrote it?

Others read it as one would a conversational letter, that Paul is dealing with many issues, and many facets of those issues, thus Romans 9 is a peice of conversation that only loosely relates to the whole of Paul's letter. This is the way I read it.

There are possibly equal difficulties in handling romans either way. As we have seen from other posts, using Romans 9 one could argue [although I believe incorrectly] that God alone chooses who will be saved, and that we have no freedom to choose Christ, or hell. However, 1 chapter later - in chapter 10 we run into difficulty with this interpretation when we read Paul's words, "Whoever calls upon the Lord will be saved." The use of the term "whoever" suggests the freedom to choose. It cannot be whoever if some are disallowed it.

Any time we take a single, or a few protions of Scripture we are inclined to run into difficulties in holding to the truth.

Who knows the real question Paul is addressing here [without looking]? There were huge objections to Paul taking the gospel to the gentiles, and that, appears to me to be the reason of Paul's discourse here. It answers this objection that God is free to save gentiles as well as Jews - that is the matter in which he chooses to use his sovereignity. When we try to read more into it than intended we end up with confusion.

I agree. Paul did not break his letter down into chapters. Romans 11, which comes after Romans 9, continues his same line of reasoning, and it clarifies his position:

Rom 1122Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Some read it as a part of a whole - that Paul has taken a single topic and, from the very outset laid out a single thought - that we are either predestined to salvation through election, or predestined to destruction. Is this the way Paul wrote it?

Others read it as one would a conversational letter, that Paul is dealing with many issues, and many facets of those issues, thus Romans 9 is a peice of conversation that only loosely relates to the whole of Paul's letter. This is the way I read it.

There are possibly equal difficulties in handling romans either way. As we have seen from other posts, using Romans 9 one could argue [although I believe incorrectly] that God alone chooses who will be saved, and that we have no freedom to choose Christ, or hell. However, 1 chapter later - in chapter 10 we run into difficulty with this interpretation when we read Paul's words, "Whoever calls upon the Lord will be saved." The use of the term "whoever" suggests the freedom to choose. It cannot be whoever if some are disallowed it.

Any time we take a single, or a few protions of Scripture we are inclined to run into difficulties in holding to the truth.

Who knows the real question Paul is addressing here [without looking]? There were huge objections to Paul taking the gospel to the gentiles, and that, appears to me to be the reason of Paul's discourse here. It answers this objection that God is free to save gentiles as well as Jews - that is the matter in which he chooses to use his sovereignity. When we try to read more into it than intended we end up with confusion.

As you stated God is Sovereign, well if you believe that then is it a stretch to believe that in His Sovereignty God has a right to call out a people for Himself... He choose the Jews first... So why not choose for Himself some Gentiles also... It's to His Glory and His Glory alone that He may elect a people for Himself...

But you do not answer the problem as to why then, God doesn't save everyone i.e. if He is not truly willing that any souls should perish.

In the context of 2 Pet. 3:9, the word translated" "usward in the KJV: and " to us" in other English translations is antecedent to the previous verse 8 reference to " but beloved."

God is not willing that any of His beloved (elect) perish. And it is by the longsuffering of God that many come into the Kingdom following a long life of miserable rebellion against Him. That is the meaning of "longsuffering to usward." It has no reference to every fallen, corrupt sinner. If it did, we would be reading about universalism in election.

But you do not answer the problem as to why then, God doesn't save everyone i.e. if He is not truly willing that any souls should perish.

In the context of 2 Pet. 3:9, the word translated" "usward in the KJV: and " to us" in other English translations is antecedent to the previous verse 8 reference to " but beloved."

God is not willing that any of His beloved (elect) perish. And it is by the longsuffering of God that many come into the Kingdom following a long life of miserable rebellion against Him. That is the meaning of "longsuffering to usward." It has no reference to every fallen, corrupt sinner. If it did, we would be reading about universalism in election.

Genesis 126 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

No...we became this way through disobedience, which is sin. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

Genesis 32 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Jesus came into the world to save that which was lost in the garden. His blood cleanses us not only from our own personal sins at but also the original sin which one is naturally born into because of the fall.